PDA

View Full Version : Rule books vs. Backround info



ss_cherubael
10-09-2006, 14:42
Hey this thread has been motivated by the ideas in the thread "which starter box is better?".

My question is with the new BFSP box being marketed towards the new blood do you think that it is right to cut the parts out of the rule book detailing all of the backround story to the warhammer world????

One of my favorite things about playing warhammer when i was a kid (and still is one of the best parts) is the backround that goes with the little elves, dwarfs and men. By only giving in the BFSP box the cut down version of the rule book do u think GW might have inadvertantly killed some of the backround aspect to the game?????

DeathMasterSnikch
10-09-2006, 15:06
Indeed, I get the feeling we're going to get kids who get them and know shirts all about the background.
The main attraction to WH for me is the fact that the background is so rich and different than most other things in the fantasy genre yet still shares enough to make it seem familiar and easy to settle into.

Simsandwich
10-09-2006, 15:15
Indeed, I get the feeling we're going to get kids who get them and know shirts all about the background.
The main attraction to WH for me is the fact that the background is so rich and different than most other things in the fantasy genre yet still shares enough to make it seem familiar and easy to settle into.

The thing that attracted me to 40K, was the background, I loved the fascist Imperium, the warring Orks, the sadistic Dark Eldar, and none of it is in the Battle For Macragge book, soon the codexes will just be an Army List if that keeps up.

Voltaire
10-09-2006, 15:34
BFSP lacked it but the big rulebook had it. They did mention the lies of White Dwarf and a little about the armies, but most of it relates to the children needing to buy a specific army book. Because kids tend to read these things cover to cover in a night, they learn about thier race and events linking it to others. BFSP may not have had anything, but I'm sure they'll find out one way or another, how diverse the WFB world actually is.

Cap'n Umgrotz
10-09-2006, 16:28
Still, wouldn't have hurt to have had a 10 page or so "setting book" methinks, to capture the imagination.
Symtomatic of a larger problem?
I think so.

DeathMasterSnikch
10-09-2006, 16:49
Because kids tend to read these things cover to cover in a night.

Kids can still read these days? I thought the younger generations were decaying :confused:

Cap'n Umgrotz made a really good point, just 10 pages or so would have set a nice scene without taking up loads of room.

UltimateNagash
10-09-2006, 17:21
I wouldn't mind the BfSP rulebook if it was said as a 'Pure Gamers Edition' or something. The BfM was useful (and still is), as it's light and doesn't get consummed bu fluff. And if I want background, I read the big one, and the old one from 1st edition!
But yeah, the BfSP (and BfM) should have a bit more background.

Actually, BfM did have a small background bit for each race. Doesn't BfSP.

And for the easily confused, the abreviations I used were: BfSP (Battle for SKull Pass) and BoM (Battle for Macragge).

IcedCrow
10-09-2006, 17:49
Let me ask you this question... how many people you know that play the game actually CARE about the background?

whitra
10-09-2006, 19:19
Everyone I play with, and most of those I have played with.

Without some background it's only marginally better than a computer game. Even if it's not official Gdub stuff something has got to be there.

DeathMasterSnikch
10-09-2006, 20:24
Let me ask you this question... how many people you know that play the game actually CARE about the background?

Meh, start a warseer poll. Anyone worth asking is signed up here.

Edit: Infact I'll do it for you.

IcedCrow
10-09-2006, 21:16
Granted a lot of people on here would say that they do care but look at the background forums for example.

One reason for the skinny rulebook to be sold with the core box is that I strongly believe that's all many people will buy.

Fluff and background have always been secondary to most gamers I have played against. NOt to all but to a large amount (the majority that *I* have encountered in my little slice of the world)

Wolfgang
11-09-2006, 00:47
Most of the folks who care about the background in my area, tend to be 'older' ( = 20+....)wargamer types.
Most of the kids, i.e. GW's main target audience just want to win games.

druchii
11-09-2006, 01:08
Most of the people I play with around here (18/20 or so) doesn't give a squat about fluff. The other 2 people use fluff to justify cheap and lame armies.

Not only that, but the majority of people I play with are 20+(most of us being atleast 23).

Fluff is nice, but I want consistent, fluent rules.

Oh, and another thing. I tend to find that GWs "fluff" is just a terrible rip-off from another piece of "fluff". Sure, it's rather hard to come up with anything origional these days, but I see just the tinest trickle come GW these days.

I'd prefer to make my own.

Master Jeridian
11-09-2006, 01:41
I can't really comment on Warhammer background (having just recently started) but in 40k fluff is definitely a poor cousin to rules banter.

Rioghan Murchadha
11-09-2006, 05:38
Just depends who you play with I guess.. The thing that irks me about the BFsP and BfM rulebooks is that I have to buy a crappy box with crappy models I don't want to get the mini-rulebook. Why the ****** can't I buy the mini to keep in my case for quick reference seperately?

Eldacar
11-09-2006, 08:00
Let me ask you this question... how many people you know that play the game actually CARE about the background?
Counting internet powergamers I meet: Not that many.
Not counting the internet gamers: The vast majority of people near me, I'd guess.

ss_cherubael
11-09-2006, 09:45
My thoughts exactly! i play within a small group of guys all of us aged from 18 to about 25 and there are the power gamers who bitch about fluff because it makes their armies less Uber and then there are the rest of us who love the ideas and backround of the game instead of just trying to steam roll someone with a beardy list.
I just really would like to see the kids getting the so called full education on warhammer not just the black and white basic rules. and yes i know that by not getting fluff and backround in the BFSP box it means that they go out and buy the armies book and what not but i am of the philosophy that you choose your race based on a connection to them and for me that always came through the backround of the army, i never ever choose an army based on how many cannons u can take or how many knights and ward saves you get, i think an army should be a representation of the player.
In my case i started out with Dark Elves and still play them today as i identified with not only the darker side of their nature (no im not a sadist or anything i just like to think pragmatically and high elves where way to up themselves) but the fact that my older brother played high elves and i felt that they had the little sibling idea behind them, so on.
BTW has that poll appeared yet?

DeathMasterSnikch
11-09-2006, 09:59
The poll is in the background forum.

zak
11-09-2006, 10:04
Without the fluff the armies just become a bunch of rules with no character. I agree that the game would would work without the fluff, but it would be a much poorer game for it. When I first started gaming I picked the Orcs as I really liked there no nonsense war-like attitude and squabbling background. This background still interests me and it's probably why 15 odd years later I'm still playing with Orcs.

Bubble Ghost
11-09-2006, 11:02
Look what happened when they took the background out of 40K codex books - outcry, and a (eventual) switch back to more background-heavy books. I can't see them doing that twice.

ss_cherubael
11-09-2006, 12:04
i hope to Khaine's bloody hand your right bubble ghost but then again there was an out cry for plastic great coat guardsmen and elves not being all t3 and nothings changed, they do what they want and to the warp with anyone else.

IcedCrow
11-09-2006, 12:08
Elves being all T3 IS a fluff related rule.

ss_cherubael
11-09-2006, 12:09
yes i know that for the general population but there is a strong case through the backround that would make some elves T4 at least.

Justicar Jacob
11-09-2006, 12:14
I am 15 and have been playing 40k for some time. What attracted me to war games was the fascinating stories. Chaos gods vs Imperium appealed to me the most. As for warhammer it is the Orcs sadistic nature, how knight like the bretonians, and the choas fighting the empire, and that is why I plan on picking up BFSP this week.

I think there will be plenty of young players who would like the story and will learn of the fluff.

Infact before I started collecting models I was mostly reading 40k/fantasy books and thats what got me started.

IcedCrow
11-09-2006, 12:20
From what I hear I wouldn't expect T4 elves except perhaps the lord fighter types.

The books are what got me started as well!

ss_cherubael
11-09-2006, 12:31
T4 elves such as the white lions, and most of the special characters

zak
11-09-2006, 13:18
I think GW are pretty stuck on the idea that all Elves will be toughness 3. I really don't see anything changing their minds.
The argument about the White Lions is a good one, but I still don't see them getting toughness 4.

IcedCrow
11-09-2006, 13:37
I don't see it happening either.

I plan on running high elves with the new book though. I will make it work.

UltimateNagash
11-09-2006, 13:38
I make armies, but it's not a massive power gaming one. My orc army at the moment has been planned to include a bit of everything, with all nearby tribes allying together. All war machines will have bullies - can't trust those Goblins...
But some "fluff" rules don't make sense - like Intrigue at Court.
On the other side, my friend want's High Elves because of how they are with Dragons.

Ironhand
12-09-2006, 02:43
Almost everyone I play with cares about their army background.